Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: Add support for the Freescale m5253demo board.

2012-06-07 Thread Greg Ungerer
On 06/07/2012 02:59 PM, Steven King wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2012 9:04:09 pm Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Steven, On 06/06/12 02:48, Steven King wrote: Add basic support for the m5253demo using the dm9000 ethernet controller. Is the m5253demo a real board? Or do you mean Freescale's M5253EVB

Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: Add support for the Freescale m5253demo board.

2012-06-07 Thread Steven King
On Thursday 07 June 2012 4:12:02 am Greg Ungerer wrote: On 06/07/2012 02:59 PM, Steven King wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2012 9:04:09 pm Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Steven, On 06/06/12 02:48, Steven King wrote: Add basic support for the m5253demo using the dm9000 ethernet controller. Is

Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: use MCF_IRQ_PIT1 instead of MCFINT_VECBASE + MCFINT_PIT1

2012-06-07 Thread Steven King
On Wednesday 06 June 2012 8:57:34 pm Greg Ungerer wrote: On 07/06/12 07:02, Steven King wrote: use MCF_IRQ_PIT1 instead of MCFINT_VECBASE + MCFINT_PIT1 so we can support those parts that have the pit1 interrupt on other than the first interrupt controller. Signed-off-by: Steven

Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: Add support for the Freescale m5253demo board.

2012-06-07 Thread Greg Ungerer
On 08/06/12 10:03, Steven King wrote: On Thursday 07 June 2012 4:12:02 am Greg Ungerer wrote: On 06/07/2012 02:59 PM, Steven King wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2012 9:04:09 pm Greg Ungerer wrote: Hi Steven, On 06/06/12 02:48, Steven King wrote: Add basic support for the m5253demo using the

Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: use MCF_IRQ_PIT1 instead of MCFINT_VECBASE + MCFINT_PIT1

2012-06-07 Thread Greg Ungerer
On 08/06/12 10:05, Steven King wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2012 8:57:34 pm Greg Ungerer wrote: On 07/06/12 07:02, Steven King wrote: use MCF_IRQ_PIT1 instead of MCFINT_VECBASE + MCFINT_PIT1 so we can support those parts that have the pit1 interrupt on other than the first interrupt controller.

[uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68k: fix inclusion of arch_gettimeoffset for non-MMU 68k classic CPU types

2012-06-07 Thread gerg
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org When building for non-MMU based classic 68k CPU types (like the 68328 for example) you get a compilation error: CC arch/m68k/kernel/time.o arch/m68k/kernel/time.c:91:5: error: redefinition of ‘arch_gettimeoffset’ include/linux/time.h:145:19: note:

[uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: fix 68328 local setting of timer interrupt handler

2012-06-07 Thread gerg
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org Compiling for 68328 based targets fails with: arch/m68k/platform/68328/timers.c: In function ‘hw_tick’: arch/m68k/platform/68328/timers.c:65:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘arch_timer_interrupt’ arch/m68k/platform/68328/timers.c: At

[uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68k: make syscall_trace_enter/leave exist for non-MMU classic m68k types

2012-06-07 Thread gerg
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org The assembler entry code calls directly to the syscall_trace_enter() and syscall_trace_leave() functions. But currently they are conditionaly compiled out for the non-MMU classic m68k CPU types (so 68328 for example), resulting in a link error: LD

[uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: fix 68360 local setting of timer interrupt handler

2012-06-07 Thread gerg
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org Compiling for 68360 based targets fails with: arch/m68k/platform/68360/config.c: In function ‘hw_tick’: arch/m68k/platform/68360/config.c:55:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘arch_timer_interrupt’ arch/m68k/platform/68360/config.c: At

Re: [uClinux-dev] [PATCH] Add support for the Coldfire m5441x.

2012-06-07 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Steven, On 07/06/12 07:28, Steven King wrote: Add support for the Coldfire 5441x (54410/54415/54416/54417/54418). Currently we only support noMMU mode. It requires the PIT patch posted previously as it uses the PIT instead of the dma timer as a clock source so we can get all that

[uClinux-dev] [PATCH] m68knommu: allow ColdFire CPUs to use unaligned accesses

2012-06-07 Thread gerg
From: Greg Ungerer g...@uclinux.org All current ColdFire CPUs are able to support unaligned memory accesses. So remove the CONFIG_CPU_HAS_NO_UNALIGNED option selection for ColdFire. It seems that the current restriction was inherrited from the early non-MMU support for the basic 68000 proecssors